I also tried Mac OS X (10.5.2) and I liked it, the only bad thing was that my Intel X3000 card is not supported but X3100 is :/ but all other things woked very well. I must also try Mac OS X with MacPorts.

Did you install it on a non-Mac? If so, how did you manage that?

It's called OSx86, basically, it's a hack for x86 OSX to allow it to run on regular PC's.
My personal experience with it involves kernel panics, kernel panics, more kernel panics, and then some.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

I use Debian at work, generally works, but I also do not consider it a bet choice. There is one thing though, in Debian installer that I like, continue installation using ssh mode. I will not mention here that you have to first type expert at cd loader, because without that you will not be able to choose taht option (fuck like a tought quest in Fallout ...), then load cd components, then at last continue ...

Hmm, more like one of those extreme buggy quests you can never hope to solve if you accidently do one tiny thing out of order...

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

I also hate their www server defautl configs. In FreeBSD we have ONE nginx.conf or httpd.conf simple, but in debian we have a whole bunch of files links dirs and so, sites-enabled, sites-disabled, modules-enabled, modules-to-consider, just great ...

#cat conf1.conf conf2.conf conf3.conf [...] > httpd.conf

Quote:

Originally Posted by vermaden

You should try ArchLinux if you want Linux, or Draco Linux.

Yes, I know about them, but I never used either.
But both of them seem to be trying to be BSD with a Linux kernel ... If I want to use BSD I would use ... BSD ... Not BSD with a Linux kernel ...

Anyway ... I installed CentOS, so far it seems rather nice, other than the fact that 1680x1050 resolution doesn't work (odd ... But seems morel like Xorg issue than CentOS).

It seems to be pretty desktop oriented, no gcc by default for example, Windows-style pop-up ``balloons'' for updates, etc.

__________________
UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things.

My personal favorite nis Ubuntu due to the fact that i has support for almost any architecture (I.E. Sparc) and its ease of use and flexibility.

__________________ Google Linux is a Green Horns Best Friend (GHBF).
Windows = a 32 bit extensions to a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit operating system originally coded for a four bit processor written by 2-bit monopolistic software company founded by a .3-bit Harvard Drop out, who can't stand one respectable bit of competition.
If I believe something to be immoral a will not keep quite and let my voice of annoyance be heard loud and clear.

CentOS is RH based--the default install is, oddly enough for a desktop user, and has no gcc by design. One has to choose to install development tools during install.
Basically, what you need is

yum -y install gcc gcc-c++ make kernel-devel

This should pull in the other necessary programs.

The reason I say oddly enough is that RH is aimed, so they (RH) say, at the server market, conceding the desktop to Ubuntu. On the other hand, one can argue that adds security to not put compilation tools on a server, and it turns into a bikeshed discussion.

My biggest complaints against RH are the gaps in their docs, and their increasing focus on their GUI tools. An RHCE friend who has worked for them comments that they take great pride in those tools.

CentOS often seems more concerned with proper documentation and QA than is RH. For a Linux server, I consider it an excellent choice.

There's a few articles of mine on their wiki. (Not always credited, usually the name on an article will be the last person who edited it--for example, I got an email from someone about their FreeNX article, because I'd done a very minor edit at the end.)

Ubuntu, though it might be, in many cases, for those who hate Windows, in many other cases, it's for the guru who is just tired of having to configure the system to get the basic things working, and simply wants a base where he can do the more interesting things. I know a few like that.

Whatever you want to say about Ubuntu and Mark Shuttleworth, I think that they have probably done more for OSS (as in open source, not the thing we all like better than alsa) than just about anyone. He's brought it into the mainstream, and it's probably one reason that so many of these hardware manufacturers are shipping with Linux. That can only help the BSD group too, meaning that there will be more drivers. Perhaps it's because I'm not a programmer, but I have less against binary blobs than many folks, as long as it will work.

I'm not saying this is a good choice on my part, it's just my personal feeling. It may come back and bite me one day if it turns out that they have hidden stuff phoning home, but at present, it seems there are enough knowledgeable people integrating the blobs so that that isn't an issue at this point.

As FloridaBSD says, Ubuntu does have flexibility with its ease of use. Additionally, its popularity means that one will almost always be able to find someone to help solve a problem.

I've used over twenty linux distributions and haven't found any of them to be as flexible as FreeBSD. Ubuntu may do well in the ease-of-use department, but it masks much of the underlying functionality. To a lot of their users, that's acceptable because they are looking for a replacement to Windows without a huge learning curve. However, I don't agree that "its popularity [necessarily] means that one will almost always be able to find someone to help solve a problem." I previously defined Ubuntu's target users; with that definition in mind, you can bet that if a difficult problem arises, then a lot of the users won't know how to solve it because they never truly learned about Linux or Unix. There's nothing wrong with that until you hit that sort of a problem, and at that point, only knowledgeable users can help you. By the way, check out Ubuntu forums. The Ubuntu community is one of the worst I've seen with tons of members that truly don't know what they are talking about. I had an argument with one user about how a server should not run X unless absolutely necessary. He and his cronies were trying to make the case that X on a server is perfectly acceptable and normal.

MacPorts is a nice package manager, but it does contain a limited amount of ports. The common applications are there, and those install and run very nicely, but if you need something that's not in the tree, then you will have to go through several hoops to have it run on Mac OS X. MacPorts integrates very well with OS X as well. The applications that are available via MacPorts natively are installed as .apps.

Thanks for input abput MacPorts, when I get OSX next time, MacPorts will be there

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carpetsmoker

It's called OSx86, basically, it's a hack for x86 OSX to allow it to run on regular PC's.
My personal experience with it involves kernel panics, kernel panics, more kernel panics, and then some.

I used KALAWAY 10.5.2 INTEL ISO on Intel Q6600 + Intel 965G (Asus P5B-VM) + 2GB RAM + SATA DVDRW + SATA HDD, I used it for about 3 weeks, and I got only one reboot, no other stability issues, sound played beatifully, everything worked out of the box, only Intel X3000 is not supported at this time, but that was not a problem.

Mac computer is currently nothing more then x86 Intel based box with s/BIOS/EFI nothing more.

__________________religions, worst damnation of mankind"If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux would probably never had happened." Linus TorvaldsLinux is not UNIX! Face it! It is not an insult. It is fact: GNU is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not UNIX”.vermaden's:linksresourcesdeviantartspreadbsd

@ninjatux. Well, let's be flexible in our definition of flexible. In this case, I meant easily used by the beginner and still usable by the more advanced.

In the sense that I think you're using the word, configurable, you won't get an argument from me. However, though I've used many different Linux distributions, I've probably spent more time learning how to configure the BSDs, so I could easily be wrong. (For example, I don't do that much configuring of CentOS, choose some packages here, stop some services there, and then go to putting in the applications.)

As for Ubuntu forums, yes, there are far more beginners than experts there, but the number of experts seems sufficient--it's just that there's a lot of silliness to wade through before finding an answer. I remember coming across a thread of someone who had a problem--seeing that the thread was 20 posts long, I didn't think it would need me to post the solution. (A simple with thing with sound on Acer laptops at the time, which as been fixed since.)
However, looking at the thread, I saw that no one had given the right answer.

On the other hand, and I guess this fits in with Ubuntu's stated mission, to bring Linux to the masses so to speak, I see amazing patience with the silly beginner questions on that forum. I also see that the beginners gradually answer the person with even less knowledge, so it seems to be a good community, despite the sometimes overwhelming numbers of newcomers.

Wubi is an installer that dual boots Ubuntu with Windows. I installed it on this notebook last Sunday. As of this morning it wouldn't boot into Ubuntu anymore and I may have lost some work. I admit there is something wrong with this notebook but it does boot into Windows.

If you aren't familiar with it, it puts Ubuntu into a compressed folder in Windows. You can install/uninstall through Windows just like any other program.

If anyone has a guess, I'm on a notebook Compaq Presario 2525 and I get an Axiom PXE boot problem saying a network cable isn't installed. I've had this issue for a month or so. Usually powering down/up fixes it.

Read the comments, and you'll see why I don't want to have much to do with Linux. No doubt, some of those people won't be able to even hold a candle to people who have used other Unix's. The Linux community is just too misinformed and misguided.

I agree with Scottro. There are some of the usual fan-boy responses from the young and naive, but also some by people who seem to know what they are doing.

For me, I don't choose a product based on who uses it. I choose based whether it works for me or not. Heavens, I drive a Benz. Does that mean I'm a rich, insufferable snot? I can assure you the former at least is not true.

I don't choose a product based on who uses it, either. If I were to, then I wouldn't have bought a Mac. However, if you look at some of the comments, it seems that a lot of those people are completely oblivious to what Linux, and in the general sense Unix, is all about, yet they use it. I don't care what somebody uses, but I expect them to be knowledgeable about what they use.

There are some of the usual fan-boy responses from the young and naive

That's what I get caught up in, still, and when I get irritated, I need to sit back and think about who might be responding. I forget that, even though the site may be a purported "professional" forum, it could still be loaded with "kids, lids and space cadets". (An old ham radio phrase.)

With all due respect to the knowledgeable youngsters out there , I do get very frustrated when I realize the f'n idiot I've been arguing with, and can't understand how anyone can think that way, is still in school and never had a full-time job.

So far I've yet to find one that makes me as happy as FreeBSD in terms of package management, which is fairly important.

1) Arch Linux -- I like that in theory they offer both binary and source options like FreeBSD, but it's very immature -- the system is extremely awkward if you go source and (silent) broken dependencies seem very common. Overall, Arch is good in theory but needs ~3+ years before it is mature.

2) Debian. Debian was how I found out that I hate binary-only distros. Lasted about 6 hours on my machine.

3) Gentoo. Gentoo would be a lot better if I had a tinderbox or a faster processor, but at 1.6GHz I'm wasting a lot of time. Portage is good but not great. Very few binaries (outside of OO and Firefox) and upgrading frequently silently breaks dependencies, which is a big pet peeve. It's what I currently run. I'm less than satisfied, though.

4) (K)Ubuntu. We run this at work. I like that everything Just Works(tm). This is what I recommend to all Linux noobs. The KDE interface is less intimidating for people who are migrating from Windows. I'd never run it on my home machine though, because as I said I hate binary-only package systems.

5) Slackware. This is the next one I need to try out. I hear a lot about it and have never loaded it up. It'll probably eventually replace my Gentoo after I back Gentoo up (I am *not* rebuilding that from scratch on this slow processor )

My main desktop is Ubuntu, Vista, XP (have to have the windows)
My media server is Mint
Laptop is Arch (could't get OpenBSD running on it)
Works system is xubuntu (only one that worked really well on a p3 500 so far)